The voice of religious people is low… and “chaotic thought” leads to disorder

In a meeting at the ancient school of Tinkeret in the Saghir Atlas, the Moroccan jurist Mouloud Al-Sariri said in response to the question, “Are later jurists only ruminating on the words of those who preceded them?”, “If an author and scholar comes and looks at the scientific material, after it has been found and established, and he makes an effort to read it, then he writes A book in which he placed this material. It is only called a compiler of scientific material. He came to confirm and control it, and not to create it.” “The originator of the Sharia law is God, and the Qur’an, the Sunnah, consensus, analogy, recommendation, approval, and blocking the pretext are principles that go back to the Qur’an. The tools for reading these principles are that they must be transmitted as the Sunnah of the Prophet was transmitted.”

He continued, explaining: “The collector will not collect the material until it passes through laboratories that verify the legitimacy of speech, and those who previously had the virtue of collecting and arranging the material, such as Al-Shafi’i, Malik, and Abu Hanifa, this does not mean that they were unique in any particularity other than the particularity of collecting. It is ridiculous to say otherwise; Whoever says that these people are still living in the mind of Al-Shafi’i, is like the one who says that these people are still living in the mind of Sibawayh or Abu Al-Aswad Al-Du’ali, the compiler of grammar rules.”

He continued: “The compiler found the material, looked at it, put it into words, then put it on papers (…) and if the compilers were not there, the material would be found, whether it was collected or not,” knowing that “it is forbidden to act on the evidence without reviewing its legal evidence,” and the jurist must “consider the evidence.” Proven evidence, and looking more than it into the opposing evidence, then comprehensive consideration, and deciding who has the right, before using the evidence in legal rulings, and if you cannot and it seems to you that it is not evidence, do not use it as evidence.” That is, “your mind that you use is not the mind of Al-Shafi’i or anyone else, and the same applies to blocking the pretext.”

He added: “Malik’s followers did not leave an issue of his without discussing it, reviewing it, and competing with it, even in the principles.” Then he went on to ask: “What did the Shafi’is leave to Al-Shafi’i in his doctrine that they did not discuss, contradict, or oppose?” Even in matters of origins; Their majority is on one side, and the Shafi’i is on the other side, on well-known issues, and they continued on that because it is the strongest and most deserving of consideration, and the Hanafis are like that in their principles, approach and theory.”

Al-Sariri reiterated that “whoever says that there is rumination in schools of thought does not know anything.” Rather, jurists go to “the spring from which their imam draws, and look at the soundness of his guidance and method. This is a kind of trial and correction, and if they find that he takes things as they are, they accept that.” And if they find that he did not bring the matter to his face, they oppose him, and say that the truth is on another side,” and therefore people follow “the diligent scholar because they agree with him, not because they imitate him or worship him.”

In another intervention during the seven hundred and seventh session of “Explanation of Mukhtasar Khalil,” and other interventions on the official channel of the ancient Tankart School, the jurist Mouloud Al-Serri presented his point of view on a number of issues raised for discussion in the Kingdom Square during recent months, on the sidelines of amending the “Family Blog.” .

Al-Sariri stated that “the legal system is not only a system for arranging life, which is the aspect that the secularist and those who look at religion look at from a human point of view, but rather it has a devotional dimension, not only the organization of life and relationships between people, but the religious person must believe in this that he is drawing closer to God through it.” “

He continued: “The voice of the people of religion is very low in demonstrating their existential, doctrinal, and scientific rights. Rather, they have withdrawn into themselves and occupied themselves with some simple issues in which the common man, the jurist, participates,” while neglecting “deepening the religion by demonstrating the existential rights of this religious person, which are entirely his essence.” Among that is his belief that this thing can only be organized in this way, because it is removed from the essence of Islam, from the essence of Sharia, and therefore he considers this sacred, devotional, through which he wants to draw closer to God. He thinks that if he spreads it as an act of worship, and at the time he is fighting this It spreads the matter among the people and raises its reputation for it.”

He added that the religious person considers the legal system and its rulings with two things: “Organizing life on a path through which the interests of the world are achieved and its evils are repelled, and that it is a matter of devotion (…) as a matter of transmitting God’s rule to the earth, and this is greater than the interest that is achieved for an individual or a group.”

In another recent intervention, Mouloud Al-Sariri said, “When many secularists, modernists, and atheists explain Muslims’ defense of their religion and their clinging to it, they give it trivial reasons that indicate that they do not understand people of faith. The first thing they do not know about themselves is that they do not know that the pleasures they receive from forbidden and forbidden things are more important than the pleasures that the ignorant call for.”

He went on to say: “They are not deprived of pleasures,” and reflected the suspicion that “people cling to the rulings of their Lord only because they were born on that and raised on it.” However, “religious action has not been studied in a way that makes it clear to these people the effects it leaves in the souls of its people.”

He continued: “Those who call for opening the field of adultery, by translating consensual relationships, find that the Muslim does not accept this, rejects this matter, hates it and hates it. Doesn’t a Muslim have lust? Isn’t this the one to whom the door of desire opens? He does not accept that because the one who takes him in chastity of pleasures and blessings cannot abandon it, and his defense here is not as some people imagine, out of ignorance and lack of understanding. Lust is embedded in human nature, but he hates it and abhors it. Because you will remove from him the greatest pleasure, which is spiritual pleasure.”

Al-Sariri believes that “what those who are free from the yoke of rational and legal consideration are calling for are consensual relationships; If those who are fighting them in this regard are hypocrites, and want to achieve polygamy, then this is the easiest path; They will remain silent and say, “Let them pass this on, and we will achieve our desires.” The person will marry with Al-Fatihah and divorce, and if he is asked, it will be said, “Ask her everything by mutual consent.” But these people have principles and a religion and something they fear, which is the descent of God’s wrath upon them, and the taking away of the benefits and pleasures that come to them through their religion.” There is “a huge difference in their lives, in their spirits and souls, between these and those, and they want to repel this evil in order to preserve the blessing of faith and religion.”

Then he went on to say: “If a cup is filled with water, it cannot be filled with anything else, until it is empty.” The same applies to the Sharia ruling if it is in a place where no one can lift it. This is a warning to the ignorant who think that if they enact laws in the place of the Sharia rule, the Sharia ruling will change or change, and these people do not know the Sharia existence and the world of Sharia truth.”

Commenting on issues raised in the public debate in Morocco, he added: “If it is decided that fanaticism will not occur, as some people dream of, then it can only remain, because this matter is not a human condition until humans remove it.” Legislative existence is affected only by God Almighty. Because it is lowered to the status of a sensory thing, so if it is determined that a person has died, this death can never be removed from him.”

He added: “When a jurist is proven in these circumstances, some describe him as stagnation, a stagnation of the mind and lack of movement. Because the ways of proceeding in the senses are eternal and permanent, no person can come and say that for hundreds of years as we have been going on this path we must change it. This is a kind of foolishness. These are established facts in creation and in legislative existence.” Then he added: “Comparing this with sensory matters.” Comes with sarcasm; It is as if someone says that it is not permissible for us to drink the water that we have drank for thousands of years, and we must get rid of it and invent another drink.” “This is the thing that is suitable for this matter, and this is what the jurist looks at in religious truths, things that transcend time and space, because man was created with water to relieve his thirst, and when it is taken away from him, he perishes.”

Al-Sariri estimated that “what is being promoted about the stagnation of religion, culture, and existence is ignorance of legislative existence, and lack of knowledge of its reality,” and that the conflict that many do not understand is that there are those who “come to a religious matter and speak about it while it has nothing to do with understanding this thing, but rather legislates with the soul.” , following moods and confusion in perception. (…) Everything that is being promoted now, which some ignorant people call ijtihad, is empty talk that has no scientific value, and you must establish the legal existence first, and then rise in the demands of the legal sciences to their highest levels, so that you can then return from the principles to the demands and from the demands to the principles to derive Islamic ruling. Not for an ordinary person to sit and hardly differentiate between a reason and a condition, and utter nonsense: We want to strive hard in religion. He does not understand the truth of religion, and he has never visited the legislative existence and the world of legal truth, and it has never crossed his mind.”

Regarding religion, which “does not solve people’s problems,” Mawloud Al-Serri said, “Discipline is the foundation of religion, that is, Islam serves people in terms of disciplining their instincts, minds, natures, and raising them, but religion is intended to legislate for people according to their desires and whims, and a person is called impolite and uneducated.” The unpurified person has problems that must be solved by religion.”

He continued: “Religion is not intended to be related to man’s making, but rather to go along with his whims. It is said: “Islam must solve people’s problems,” but “they must be created by Islam in order to solve their problems. Islam solves the problems of those who are guided by its law, not to unleash on the people all kinds of corruption and say that Islam must solve their problems.” Religion is not brought to “solve problems.” The lion loves to eat people’s meat.”

Al-Sariri identified the problem with “those who want a law that conforms to people’s whims, not to create whims that follow the Sharia,” and his solution is that “people must be reshaped in a sound way; As for simply saying that this is nature in souls; “Whoever kills people, isn’t it a nature in people’s souls?” And the criminal who kills people, isn’t this an existing instinct? So why don’t you legislate solutions for him and say it is permissible for him to do so?” Then he commented, “The balance has been disturbed,” before concluding by saying: What exists now is “chaos,” no disciplined thought. “Even atheistic thought does not exist (in societal debate). Rather, there is a chaotic thought with no reference, no basis, and no basis, and it is destined for chaos and disorder.”